What makes such a measurement an "invalid form"?
The measurements are real, and there is an established history of the models being generally correct (if not in specific details) by now. Climate study is not the new science you seem to think it is.
Can you point me to one such model? One that actually predicted temperatures correctly back in the 1970s and not after various recent "adaptations" like "corrected" emission data?
> The measurements are real
Yes, measurements are real. Interpolations, resulting "global" temperatures and predictions aren't.
HadCRUT4 (from UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit)
GISTEMP from the NASA GISS
MLOST from the NOAA
JMA from the Japan Meteorological Agency
I'm open to other datasets. I'm not choosy.
I believe that the noisy measure goes up, on average, because it is (noisily) measuring a warming climate. I'll make that bet every year, and I will come out ahead...
using the trend line, you could set odds at which the betting on a colder 2021 would be the correct bet - but it isn't 50/50, which it would be if the process were random noise.
as a professional poker player I'm not surprised by this argument, but I am saddened.
edit: do you actually not understand the basics of statistical inference? this is like, middle-level high school math.
Good luck with that, but you first asked about one year (next year), which is a different matter altogether.
> (edit: do you actually not understand the basics of statistical inference? this is like, middle-level high school math.
I completely understand your point and how you are trying to move the goalpost from an easily refutable argument to something more useful. Perhaps your "professional poker player" mind doesn't understand that recent increases/decreases in temperature averages affect next year's weather, whereas past poker games don't affect your current one.